On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Jesse Jacobs wrote: > Hello Robert, > > I have to admit, I'm still inexperienced with all this stuff. > > I haven't made an initrd in a while now. > > What'd ya think o the new xconfig? Sweet eh!
yup, especially *my* contribution (he said, ever so smugly). > Seriously though, My understanding was that an initrd.img was only > required if you built as a module the file system on which the "/" and > subsequently the "/lib/modules/2.5.X" location on. From which additional > modules could be loaded. one difference i recall is that, if you use an initrd.img, the mounting of the root filesystem is done in userspace with tools that understand LABEL= entries in your /etc/fstab file. if you don't use an initrd.img, the mounting is done by the kernel, which does *not* understand labels. that's what i got burned by once upon a time which inspired me to start looking into this a little more carefully. and (also from memory), there's more to it than just that these days. in short, even if you don't need any particular modules to just mount your root FS, there are other reasons for using an initrd. rday p.s. some of the intricacies for initrd are in the Documentation/initrd.txt file in the kernel source tree, but that file seems fairly out of date (2000). any pointers to a newer version somewhere? -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
